Criminal Law: Death Sentence – Juror Non-Disclosure – Rehabilitation Of Witness

(1)Where a defendant sentenced to death in a murder case argued that a juror did not indicate to the trial court that he was a member in a venire panel in an earlier trial involving the defendant, the defendant did not present evidence that the juror recognized him to make the non-disclosure intentional, and the defendant also did not show prejudice, and the trial court also did not err in sustaining the state’s motion to strike for cause three prospective jurors and in overruling the state’s strikes of 20 other jurors based on their religious beliefs.

(2)Where during cross examination in a murder trial the defense tried to show that a witness had an obstructed view of the shooting, the prosecutor on redirect could elicit testimony about her prior consistent statements to the police identifying the defendant because this was rehabilitation of the witness rather than improper bolstering.

(3)Even though a prosecutor in a murder case asked a witness leading questions, the trial court urged the prosecutor to ask open-ended questions and found that the witness was difficult to question, and the defendant did not show that he was prejudiced, and the conviction is affirmed over the defendant’s remaining challenges to instructions and to the admission of evidence, including evidence of a prior murder for which the defendant was convicted.

(4)Where a defendant in a first-degree murder case was sentenced to death, the penalty met the statutory proportionality requirements.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. McFadden (MLW No. 64600/Case No. SC89429 – 35 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Teitelman, J.; Russell, Breckenridge, Fischer, Stith and Draper, JJ., concur; Wilson, J., not participating) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Gaertner Jr., J. (Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for appellant) (Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)